Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blocking Kiwifarms

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#491

Post by layer8 »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

> we shouldn’t be the ones making that call, and no one else who should was stepping up in spite of being aware of the threat.

By making that call regardless, I don’t think you’ve increased the likelihood of law enforcement (or other appropriate parties) stepping up to deal with such cases in a timely manner in the future. Maybe rather the opposite, which would be unfortunate.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#492

Post by alexnewman »

It sucks the legal system can’t move fast enough. We really need a way for the fbi to arrest the site operators more quickly. Of course, This is revolting content of the highest order but that really shouldn’t and doesn’t figure into the calculas.

This move was correct because it protects cloudflare shareholders. Taking the site down has serious downsides. It puts all of society at risk. Law enforcement now loses transparency on what is going on with these forums, whose connecting to it, how users are interacting with it. Driving these sites underground means they are more difficult to interdict and may ultimately increase danger and death.

Seems kiwifarms was prepared for this and already transferred to new infra at another dns I won’t name

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#493

Post by encryptluks2 »

paconbork wrote: post #389
debacle wrote: post #176

I am a free speech absolutist, but I read the Wikipedia page on this site and it seems bad. "Crimes were committed," "People lost their lives" bad. Unjustifiably bad. That said, is anyone willing to steelman this website? Could this possibly be construed as just a big misunderstanding?

The actual free speech absolutist position would be "if it's illegal, the government can intervene. Otherwise, it remains"

A majority of laws were written before the Internet existed. Be careful what you advocate for, because if you want police to be able to take down a domain via the registrar due to a possibly security threat, then that is what you'll get.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#494

Post by loteck »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #466
loteck wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out there's no such thing as neutrality. Connecting content to the world is a choice your team approves or declines. You can complain about scalability of that decision all you want. Cloudflare is not neutral, and will never be. You're an active participant and you have to deal with your responsibility.

Is the phone company responsible for connecting content? How about your internet service provider? At what level does someone become responsible? This is a question for the law, not for the mob. The internet, thanks to a completely fucked up legal regime (section 230), is currently very gray. Facebook and Twitter, which are commonly used to facilitate large-scale violent riots and play host to far more doxxing and cy…

At all levels, and Cloudflare isn't exempted from that. Social media platforms already routinely decline to host content via moderation.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#495

Post by throwaway932022 »

jacooper wrote: post #444
throwaway932022 wrote: post #250

The admin of kiwifarms has posted the following in response: >I am so full of hate for this situation. I try to write down my thoughts and I find myself unable to focus on one thing I hate the most. The person committing crimes to frame my community, or the sex pest who groom little boys, or the journalists who outright lie, or the corporate cowardice responsibility for the fragile state of the Internet. >It is all s…

Says the man who told the NZ police that their country is a shit hole because they asked him for details about the Christchurch terrorist, and he confirmed the he reposted the video and the "manifesto" of the terrorist. https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/owner-of-christchurch-s...

There are two sides, the other is:

1. Christchurch terrorist had no known account on the site so there was no information to give.

2. That Oceanic law enforcement were trying to arrest anybody who so clips of the shooting video or materials related to the shooting under the same laws as child porn.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#496

Post by derefr »

scythe wrote: post #166
ffwszgf wrote: post #53

Cloudflare can do whatever it wants but I wish they were honest about it. The claim that there has been some “dangerous escalation” in the past 2 weeks is nonsense. If anything the owner has been monitoring the thread more proactively and making sure people follow the law. This is included not allowing the creation of new accounts and reminding everyone that their data will be turned over to the authorities should it…

They didn't say that there was "dangerous escalation" in the past two weeks. They said that there was a pressure campaign over the last two weeks, and they also said that they didn't want to comply with this campaign. They, crucially, said that there was dangerous escalation over the past 48 hours, i.e., since Thursday. Given that most of us have jobs, we might not have noticed. But what changed in 48 hours that led…

Cloudflare didn't say that they contacted law enforcement in the last 48 hours; they said that they've been in contact with law enforcement for weeks and law enforcement hasn't acted (i.e. to give them a court order to shut the thing down.)

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#497

Post by convery »

eastdakota wrote: post #469
philippejara wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, can we know what was this great threat then that suddenly made you change your position in just a few days? Furthermore, do you believe that someone who is issuing a threat on a public platform is going to not act it out because you took it away? If anything it just sounds like it would make them even more incensed to do it, just makes absolutely no sense to frame it as some immediacy issue.

Yes, as noted in the post if you read to the end, I am very concerned about that.

So, can we get any details on what was actually said on the forum rather than just "escalating threats"?

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#498

Post by lakotajames »

lupire wrote: post #470
philippejara wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, can we know what was this great threat then that suddenly made you change your position in just a few days? Furthermore, do you believe that someone who is issuing a threat on a public platform is going to not act it out because you took it away? If anything it just sounds like it would make them even more incensed to do it, just makes absolutely no sense to frame it as some immediacy issue.

At least one accessory to attempted murder, at least: https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/2022-alleged-kiwi-...

That happened before they made the original response, though. It's definitely not that.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#499

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

initplus wrote: post #455
eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

Kiwifarms should have been dealt with by the traditional legal system years ago. It is honestly shocking to me that the operator has never been charged. The site has been engaging in mass harassment for years and is responsible for multiple suicides. When the legal system fails, people turn to vigilante justice, and we get this mess instead. People feel so strongly that Kiwifarms should be taken offline that they eng…

> and is responsible for multiple suicides.

I've suffered some cases of extreme, acute depression in my life, and I was lucky that I had some support that prevented my depression from killing me.

That said, I'm really uncomfortable with the language that somebody else can be, as you put it, "responsible" for someone's suicide. One of the things that is really driven home in therapy for depression (that is, after you're no longer in a suicidal state) is that you alone are responsible for your actions; you're not merely at the whim of your circumstances.

The harassment from Kiwifarms is/was reprehensible, but harassment alone, at that level, is enough to draw a social and legal response without pretending they are responsible for someone else's suicide.

Re: Blocking Kiwifarms

#500

Post by Ralo »

eastdakota wrote: post #391

Reading over the comments I see everyone thinking this is about “free speech.” It is not. It’s about what in the US you’d call “due process” and in all the rest of the world you’d call “rule of law.” Our decision today was that the risk created by the content could not be dealt with in a timely enough matter by the traditional rule of law systems. That’s a failure of the rule of law on two dimensions: we shouldn’t be…

I remember many years ago with lulzsec, where cloudflare refused to shutdown their services. Whether what they did was moral or not, it was a still a crime and I imagine it was because they agreed with the message.
Post reply on HN